Al-Muqaddimāt al-Mumahhidāt - Ibn Rush al-Jadd - (3/210)

Al-Muqaddimāt al-MumahhidātIbn Rush al-Jadd

Section

If we invoke this reasoning to explain why amputation does not apply to someone who steals from outside secure custody, the rationale is that he is not a thief, whereas Allah Most High commanded that the thief’s hand be cut off. If, however, we call him a thief, then we exempt him from amputation only on the basis of the established Sunnah. For the Sunnah explains the Quran, restricts the scope of its general wording, and clarifies what it leaves unspecified. Allah, Almighty and Majestic, says:

“And We have sent down to you the Reminder so that you may explain to people what has been revealed to them.” [Al-Nahl: 44]

Allah’s words, “The thief, male or female” [Al-Mā’idah: 38], comprise two general expressions encompassing all thieves. The Sunnah excludes from their scope anyone who steals from outside secure custody, just as it excludes anyone who steals less than the minimum value warranting amputation. There is no disagreement within the Muslim community that the general wording of the Quran may be restricted by reports transmitted by upright narrators that fall short of mass transmission. Their disagreement concerns only whether the Quran may be abrogated by mass-transmitted Sunnah; on this there are two opinions. As for abrogation through reports falling short of mass transmission, no one permits this after the death of the Prophet—peace be upon him. It was permissible only during his lifetime. An example is the report concerning the people of Qubā, who, while praying, turned away from the direction of prayer they had been certain of, on the report of a single person. This was permissible for them because a means leading to certain knowledge takes the place of certain knowledge itself.

Some scholars of legal theory held that Allah Most High’s words, “The thief, male or female” [Al-Mā’idah: 38], belong to the category of wording that requires clarification, rather than general wording. The argument is: “Since it was expressed in general terms, and the Sunnah then restricted it through attributes and conditions, such as secure custody and a minimum value, it became wording requiring clarification.” This is incorrect. There is no difference between excluding particular individuals encompassed by general wording and qualifying that wording through attributes and conditions. When general wording is qualified by a condition or an attribute, its scope is thereby restricted to exclude whatever does not meet that condition or possess that attribute. This is clear.

فصل فإذا اعتللنا بهذا في سقوط القطع عمن سرق من غير حرز فالعلة فيه أنه ليس بسارق، فأمر الله تعالى بقطع يد السارق. وإن قلنا: إنه سارق فإنما أسقطنا القطع عنه بالسنة الثابتة، لأن السنة مفسرة للقران ومخصصة لعمومه ومبينة لمجمله، قال الله ﷿: ﴿وَأَنْزَلْنَا إِلَيْكَ الذِّكْرَ لِتُبَيِّنَ لِلنَّاسِ مَا نُزِّلَ إِلَيْهِمْ﴾ [النحل: ٤٤]. وقول الله ﷿: ﴿وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ﴾ [المائدة: ٣٨] لفظان عامان متناولان لجمع السراق، فخصصت السنة من ذلك من سرق من غير حرز، كما خصصت من ذلك من سرق أقل من النصاب الذي يجب فيه القطع. ولا اختلاف بين الأمة أن عموم القرآن يخصص بأخبار الآحاد العدول. وإنما اختلفوا هل يجوز نسخ القرآن بالسنة المتواترة أم لا؟ على قولين، وأما بأخبار الآحاد فلا يجوز ذلك عند أحد بعد موت النبي ﵇، وإنما كان ذلك جائزا في حياته، مثل ما جاء في رجوع أهل قباء في صلاتهم عن قبلتهم التي كانوا على يقين منها بخبر الواحد، وإنما جاز ذلك لهم لأن الطريق المؤدي إلى العلم يقوم مقام العلم. وذهب بعض الأصوليين إلى أن قول الله تعالى: ﴿وَالسَّارِقُ وَالسَّارِقَةُ﴾ [المائدة: ٣٨] من المجمل الذي يفتقر إلى البيان لا من العموم، قال: لأنه لما ورد بلفظ العموم فخصصت السنة منه صفات وشروطا من حرز ونصاب عاد مجملا. وهذا ليس بصحيح، إذ لا فرق بين تخصيص بعض الأعيان الذي يقتضيه اللفظ العام أو يقيده بصفات وشروط، لأنه إذا قيد اللفظ العام بشرط أو صفة فقد خصص ما يتناوله ما لم يحصل على ذلك الشرط ولا كان بتلك الصفة، وهذا بَيِّن.